MLB Off-Topic

[TheMatrix31]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

My buddy's 21 year old brother who was never a baseball fan before the last few months just asked me TODAY about how his first-ever fantasy baseball team came out and he's asking what I think about which team he should start following. He said he doesn't want to follow the Dodgers but he's thinking Angels "cuz of Trout."

His exact words were "Trying to get more into baseball as I barely watch bball anymore and footballs gone lol."

Imagine that.

[CMH]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Basically every league is posting highs in revenue though aren't they? Doesn't necessarily mean league is better quality now than in the past. Dollar for example could just be stronger now than before(one of reasons why guys get paid so much now compared to even 5-10 years ago).

It's not just baseball or sports, all companies all over the place want to try and appeal to younger people because they know that's the next group of people who'll impact them.

This is from 2015,but still, look at numbers in terms of people age 20-30 compared to 30-40 or 40-50,50-60 and so on, that 20-30 group does seem to be the biggest. So wouldn't that be one of the main demographics you want to reach?

http://d140q24ubocq3n.cloudfront.net/wp-content/blogs.dir/11/files/2016/06/Chart-1.png

Even on a global scale

http://www.indexmundi.com/graphs/population-pyramids/world-population-pyramid-2016.gif

Lots more people aged 10-29 than 30-49 or 50-69.

None of the studies I've seen that try to pin MLB as having a problem because of youth (lack of) interest has ever proven that it would actually kill baseball.

It's all hypothetical.

Maybe baseball is an older person's sport. It's worked out quite well for CBS.

We have this problem in television that because the 18-34 group is so valuable it means everything and the world to all things broadcasting on television. It's a lot of bs.

People or writers that talk like that are the same ones that also say HBO is failing because it doesn't get advertising revenue (as if they care. They don't.) That warn fans The Walking Dead is losing millions of fans and therefore not going to survive (10 million becoming 8 million is still 7.5 million more than most long running shows. I think AMC is fine).

So what that baseball doesn't attract younger fans. Guess what? Everyone gets older. It's part of life. And baseball has shown to skew older which those young people will eventually get to.

Revenue is up because there's value. There wouldn't be value if networks were that concerned about the 18-34 demo.

It's not an issue. Stop reading the sky is falling articles. Baseball is doing great.

[kehlis]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Basically every league is posting highs in revenue though aren't they? Doesn't necessarily mean league is better quality now than in the past. Dollar for example could just be stronger now than before(one of reasons why guys get paid so much now compared to even 5-10 years ago).

It's not just baseball or sports, all companies all over the place want to try and appeal to younger people because they know that's the next group of people who'll impact them.

This is from 2015,but still, look at numbers in terms of people age 20-30 compared to 30-40 or 40-50,50-60 and so on, that 20-30 group does seem to be the biggest. So wouldn't that be one of the main demographics you want to reach?

http://d140q24ubocq3n.cloudfront.net/wp-content/blogs.dir/11/files/2016/06/Chart-1.png

Even on a global scale

http://www.indexmundi.com/graphs/population-pyramids/world-population-pyramid-2016.gif

Lots more people aged 10-29 than 30-49 or 50-69.

I don't think MLB cares what demographic they are hitting. This isn't a TV show or a popularity contest as much as some want to make it out to be.

The ad revenue is there because it's dependent on the local networks. The push for the need to shorten games is a forced, unnecessary angle.

[Sportsforever]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

I have been watching baseball since the 1980's and the story has been the same since then; it's a dying sport, the audience is too old, baseball needs to "change", etc. 30+ years later it's doing just fine...I had a library of the old Baseball Digest magazine that went back to the 1940's. I would flip through it and it didn't matter if the edition was from the 1960's, the 1970's, the 1980's, etc, I could always find an article saying baseball was dying. Baseball isn't dying...it's just a hypochondriac.

[Money99]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

How about a picture-in-picture of a circus bear riding a bicycle at all times action isn't taking place? That might keep people engrossed.

I'll see your dancing bear and raise you one Trivago Guy being flogged.

Sent from my LG-K210 using Tapatalk

[Blzer]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

I have been watching baseball since the 1980's and the story has been the same since then; it's a dying sport, the audience is too old, baseball needs to "change", etc. 30+ years later it's doing just fine...I had a library of the old Baseball Digest magazine that went back to the 1940's. I would flip through it and it didn't matter if the edition was from the 1960's, the 1970's, the 1980's, etc, I could always find an article saying baseball was dying. Baseball isn't dying...it's just a hypochondriac.

I do believe there are less boys and girls playing youth baseball/softball now, though. I don't have numbers to back them up nor do I want that to be true, so I hope somebody can prove me wrong there.

If not in general, I know this has at least somewhat been the case in the African American community.

[HungryBologna]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

I do believe there are less boys and girls playing youth baseball/softball now, though. I don't have numbers to back them up nor do I want that to be true, so I hope somebody can prove me wrong there.

If not in general, I know this has at least somewhat been the case in the African American community.

I think that's always been the case for the African American community. I don't have numbers either but in general, parents steering their kids away from football.. they have to go somewhere.

Soccer? Lacrosse?... baseball?

[Speedy]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

To play devil's advocate here.

I do understand where Manfred is coming from with regard to pace of play. When watching the LLWS, it's a breath of fresh air...the amount of "dead" time is much less relative to the majors. That's not to say I don't enjoy watching MLB but it is admittedly annoying to wait 1-2 minutes before a pitch is throw IN THE SAME AB. I was at a minors game last year (low A-ball game) and visibly noticed the length of time it took for a pitcher to throw the ball within the AB...I'm at the game too, with good seats and enjoying the game - not at home on my TV.

I agree with Manfred's thoughts on the strike zone; same with meetings on the mounds and reducing those occurrences. I'm not a fan of employing a pitch clock however but at the same time, I didn't want instant replay when it was introduced but now I think it's absolutely necessary. I understand the thought "The game is fine - don't mess with it!!" but I don't see Manfred changing core fundamentals of the game...just wanting to remove dead time.

[Blzer]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

^ I don't think anybody disagrees with you.

I just never considered intentional walks dead time, considering legalities are in play and literally anything can happen still.

[kehlis]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

I consider mound visits to be an integral part of the game and wouldn't want to see them reduced.

[Blzer]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

I consider mound visits to be an integral part of the game and wouldn't want to see them reduced.

But reduced from unlimited? The catcher can go out and chat whenever he wants (same as any other player, really).

If catchers have headset devices inside of their helmet now, that makes for unlimited conferences from the pitching coach as the catcher can pretty much just relay his information.

I want a lost replay challenge to also result in zero defensive conferences for three consecutive outs.

My big ones aren't regarding conferences, though. It's time between batters and deciding to appeal plays via replay or not. As a batter myself, I never left the box between pitches. I think they could speed that up a little bit, but just fine them. Every time, somebody has a clock on watching it on TV, and they hit a little button that fines that batter every time they take too long. Boom.

[kehlis]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

But reduced from unlimited? The catcher can go out and chat whenever he wants (same as any other player, really).

If catchers have headset devices inside of their helmet now, that makes for unlimited conferences from the pitching coach as the catcher can pretty much just relay his information.

I want a lost replay challenge to also result in zero defensive conferences for three consecutive outs.

My big ones aren't regarding conferences, though. It's time between batters and deciding to appeal plays via replay or not. As a batter myself, I never left the box between pitches. I think they could speed that up a little bit, but just fine them. Every time, somebody has a clock on watching it on TV, and they hit a little button that fines that batter every time they take too long. Boom.

I'd prefer them to not be limited at all.

[Jr.]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

My big ones aren't regarding conferences, though. It's time between batters and deciding to appeal plays via replay or not. As a batter myself, I never left the box between pitches. I think they could speed that up a little bit, but just fine them. Every time, somebody has a clock on watching it on TV, and they hit a little button that fines that batter every time they take too long. Boom.

This was implemented last year. Not sure how long it stayed, but they made a big deal out of it the first month of the season saying how players would be fined if they left the box after a pitch where they didn't swing.

[Blzer]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

I'd prefer them to not be limited at all.

I'm personally indifferent on the matter, because I'd prefer a five hour game over a two hour game any day. I sometimes pine for a game to go into extra innings just so there is more baseball (without an international tiebreaker rule with a runner placed on second base).

All I said is I agree with logical steps to be made to increase pace of play, and it probably starts with the one thing that you have unlimited visits on. It doesn't help if you allow a catcher to listen to his pitching coach and be able to do it an infinite number of times as well.

If there is one thing I would do, it's not allow a catcher to visit, then the pitching coach to come out, simply as a stalling tactic. If you have something to tell them, great. If you're waiting for your pitcher to warm up, sorry... you've lost out. Pitch to the next batter, and press your luck. This is not a time thing for me, it's just an illegitimate practice, and abusive of the logic behind the rule.

Anyway, the last thing that needed to be changed was the intentional walk. If anything, it really just opens up a whole new can of worms. What else will that change in the future? I'm telling you, removing rounding the bases after hitting a home run is now an absolute possibility. Will they do that? Probably not because of the "excitement" factor... but it is within the same realm of logic with regard to legalities of the sport. Sacrifice bunts? Within the same legalities as well, only a more competitive play and more common instances of exceptions to the play. I don't want them to change this sport too much just because some kids have short attention spans.

This was implemented last year. Not sure how long it stayed, but they made a big deal out of it the first month of the season saying how players would be fined if they left the box after a pitch where they didn't swing.

My statement was regarding in between batters, not in between pitches (though I know I spoke of in between pitches as well). It should take twenty seconds from the end of one play to the start of the pitch to the next batter. I'd say it probably averages 35 seconds normally (considering I can do 30-second advances from one play to the next and not miss the moment where the pitcher is receiving signals from the catcher the next time out).

As far as in between pitches, their enforcement last year led to little effect, though. I don't need it to lead to an umpire ejecting Bryce Harper, I just need to see the player realize that he will magically receive $30,000 less every time it happens. That'll keep them in there.

Do I need this to happen? No, but as a player I never understood the mannerisms. You tightened your gloves last time and didn't swing the bat the next pitch, so why are you doing it again? And you're talking to a very high maintenance player right here. I needed a lot to go right to say I'm performing comfortably and at my best, especially with regard to things like my bat handle grip, the box, etc. I just didn't need to let out a large exhale between pitches every time.

[kehlis]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

I just think sometimes we are all trying too hard to determine what the problems are and ways to shave time while ignoring things within the game that could ultimately be the cause of longer games.

I don't have the time (or desire) to look up a bunch of in game stats but did look up league strikeouts per game and that has gone up steadily since the 2000's. I couldn't find recent league pitch count numbers but as of 2010 they were drastically going up and would not be shocked if that were still the case.

Batters are being taught to be more patient and see more pitches every at bat. The purpose of that? Get to the starter earlier in the game. We all know when the starter comes out it becomes of domino affect of relievers after that which also comes with pitching change breaks.

I know people are saying run totals are going down so why are game times going up but that doesn't tell me anything at all. You could get 4 runs on 4 pitches taking all of about 5 minutes or you could have a 20 minute half inning that results in zero runs.

So while we're trying to get rid of a 20 second mound visit to solve the length of games maybe they aren't part of the cause of increase in games at all. Maybe it's just the evolution of baseball.

I know people have suggested restricting the amount of pitching changes but to me that's changing the integrity of the game. Trust me, I'm all for shorter games. If I want to stay up to watch a majority of my favorite teams games I would be up until 1:30 and that's just not possible. I just don't want it to happen by way of changing the integrity of the game.